MossSpace
We're old enough to remember when Rolling Stone was a cultural force, not just a three-star rubber-stamper (and blog punching bag), so we feel bad about piling on, but do we really need a RS-based MySpace ripoff? Via We Want Media:
[Former Maxim and current RollingStone.com head Keith] Blanchard plans to launch a separate site that will be a social network for music fans, complete with profiles and the ability to have a say in their "Best of" lists. Blanchard called it the "American Idol version of lists."We can hear the desperate scream: "We still matter!" But they don't seem to be addressing any need or adding anything new. So, the failure here is sort of built-in. Maybe we're missing a crucial detail (or the important part of the business plan), but it seems like RS is a) failing to ask big enough questions, or b) coming up with really bad answers. Either way they're not bringing much to the party. The "American Idol version" of lists? Excuse us for not giving a fuck.
A more valuable (and viable) question would be: How could MySpace be improved? Social networking aside, it's an amazingly valuable tool from a music perspective -- both for artists and fans -- as it decentralizes music (by allowing bands to make an end-run around the label system), even as it centralizes by putting all of those bands in the same place. All this, you know. But we bet we're not the only ones who think it's a bit of an unwieldy mess.
We could think of a few fixes to MySpace (fewer pedophiles), none of which would involve the controlling "influence" of Rolling Stone. This is sad, in a way, and has sparked much internal debate. We'd like to think that what we do can exist alongside traditional, Rolling Stone-style journalism. But it seems that blogs (not just ours) have been pulling more than their share of the weight as far as breaking bands, reporting news, and capturing what it means to love music in the early 21st century.
Over at Rolling Stone, once a paragon of long-form innovation, editor Ed Needham admits that he doesn't even bother to read long articles in magazines. "People just don't have as much time to read," he told USA Today. His boss, Jann Wenner, seems to agree. Via Columbia Journalism Review:
"Back when Rolling Stone was publishing these seven-thousand-word stories, there was no CNN, no Internet," Wenner told the Times. "And now you can travel instantaneously around the globe, and you don't need these long stories to get up to speed."And so the magazines turn into blogs. Great for blogs, but also bad for music lovers. What happened to serious music journalism? Apparently RS is archiving all of its back issues, and making them available online and on DVD, a la the New Yorker, so we can trace the slow devolution from 1965-present. We'll take our fair share of the blame (and credit) for the change, but it seems like a sad endeavor.
A last thought, this from n+1, one of our favorite smart-guy (and gal) mags. A look inside the casting process for the shitshow that was I'm From Rolling Stone.
[The candidates] claimed to be "inspired" by Hunter S. Thompson—but not inspired to mock hypocrisy and greed, not inspired to rage at a world that needed their rage to wake it up. They were just "inspired." They were inspired by fame. They were excited to join the passionate and musical adventure in the sky that was a job at Rolling Stone.And so, Rolling Stone's moribund future collides head-on with its glorious past, and all of us suffer the consequences (those of us who sat through an episode of I'm From Rolling Stone, anyway). We wish that Rolling Stone would spend less energy and effort trying to be every blog, and more time trying to be ... Rolling Stone. Bring back the 7,000-word think piece! Bring back the long-form interview! As music fans, we'd all be better for it, even if it means the venerable magazine falls on the sword of consumer indifference in the end.
Posted at 8:41 PM
-->
-->
I still like David Fricke.
Score = 0
Um...
Uh...
Er...
No bashing RS about American Idol. You did, after all, just run copy about Kelly's new cleavage... AH, I MEAN, song! Yeah. Song. All hiked up for the camera, that melody is...!
DwD
Score = 0
i think similar thoughts all the time ... the last time i bought a RS was when the cover article was "Scott Stapp, the guns, the drugs, the women" or something and it was just to ironic to pass up.
at the same time, don't you think you would just bash RS as pompous if they did try to wisen up? most of the content in RS is written by someone who defines rock and roll the same way my father does (whether they're my age or not). Last thing i need is 7000 words from an aging baby-boomer about the information revolution.
all hail the echo chamber of the internet!
Score = 0
stereogum should maybe try to be a "cultural force". that would be a gas.
Score = 0
Rolling Stone has been a laughing stock for years now. No one cares what they have to say about terrible music. Y'know, when they used to cover artists who truly deserved to be covered, they were much more enthralling. Now they're just pandering to the masses (fucking Fallout Boy on the cover?!? FUCKING FALLOUT BOY?). Not to mention they just jack everything from other blogs nowadays. Even Pitchfork is better than Rolling Stone, cause atleast Pitchfork has some good media in place (songs, videos, etc.).
Score = 0
There is a whole helluva lot that i hate about RS.
But one thing they still do well is in-depth reporting stories, even though now they're mostly limited to politically related topics (for god knows what reason.) But did anyone read the E. Howard Hunt story? That was quality journalism.
Score = 0
Rolling
Score = 0
agreed re: e howard hunt.
Score = 0
I'd rather have them put out a tribute cover every month to a legendary artist than waste ink praising jokes like Fall Out Shit and Panic At The Shit.
Score = 0
Thoughtful post. I was just having this same discussion with a group of friends, some who work in magazines, others in the wonderful world of Web 2.0 or whatever the fuck we're calling it today. We all agreed. In a world of 24-minute newscycles, the only way a magazine can be relevant is to be a magazine, to provide depth of reportage that can only be truly found in print. No one, after all, wants to read a 3000-word post on a blog. That being said, let's not bash RS for its move towards new media and also its shortening of article length. It's about the climate--not the magazine. It's a business after all. In fact, wasn't that the whole message of the reality show?
RS can only continue to exist in the world of Laddie mags, who share its demos and were stealing its share, by shortening the form of its content. And there is much opportunity to be gained by successfully integrating the online platform and magazines. It would be stupid to miss that opportunity, and in the future it might be the only way to gain more circ. The fact is, there IS incredible reporting still in RS. Mostly in National Affairs, yes. But remember, RS has historically been about politics as viewed through the lens of music (John Lennon appeared on that early cover with a soldier's helmet for a reason). Point being, this important reporting, and perhaps one of the few mass voices to take some left-leaning positions on National Affairs, would only exist in this new media climate by making the compromises to the other sections of the magazine to ensure it would even exist and be read and thus influence some good in the world.
One last point. Let's not forget that for all the criticism of the blogosphere, Jann Wenner is one of the great magazine founders and editors of the 20th century. The reporting RS has put out over the past 40-years is certainly due to all the talent involved, writers, staff, etc. But it's also due to Jann's vision and ability to perceive and harness that talent. And his ability to single-mindedly run a successful business. Regardless of what you think of the result, or his moves as a boss, or his personality for that matter, anyone who can start a magazine in a loft on $7000 and turn it into a billion-dollar empire, while still remaining dedicated to some of that early idealism, deserves at least some modicum of respect.
Shit, I just actually broke my own rule and wrote a long comment. Sorry.
Score = 0
Wow, JT- it's good to see someone that works at rolling stone reads this blog
Score = 0
everyone at rolling stone reads this blog
Score = 0
Pitchfork media miente
Score = 0
Ed Needham hasn't been the editor of Rolling Stone for over three years; the magazine began running long features again as soon as he left.
Another example of blogs' awesome accuracy and superiority to print media.
Score = 0
Well, jeez, 'scottgot3million$'. Thanks for pointing out that error. I'm gonna stop reading Stereogum now and go back to the print mags that never, ever, ever make factual errors. Thank you for showing me the light.
Score = 0
FYI -- That $ was completely fabricated by an anonymous commenter on another blog. Figured people would stop propagating that by now!
Score = 0
You won't buy it Nappy, but I don't work at Rolling Stone . . . or for anything else, or anyone else, having to do with it. I do however always wonder how, whenever someone says something favorable about something being criticized, there's always someone who thinks that person must work for the thing critiqued.
But I guess there is something funny about that sort of snarky comment. So I guess that's why you went there.
I do agree with Journo, everyone at RS does read this blog. As does everyone who works at any other music magazine. Stereogum has been mentioned in a thousand publications as one of the "best" blogs.
And no. I don't work for Stereogum either.
Score = 0
Our bad there - shoulda been a "former" in front of Needham's name, along with some past-tensing in that bit. We knew the CJR article was a few years old, but we thought the central point of Jann Wenner's quote was relevant to the current reach into the blogging/myspace world, hence the inclusion. Wenner is still the Editor and Publisher. Will Dana is the current Managing Editor. Anyway, sorry about the bad sourcing.
Score = 0
Apparently Rolling Stone has never heard of Music Hawk, which is basically a MySpace for bands.
Score = 0
"Our bad there" isn't really good enough. how bout you start by actually correcting the major errors in your screed: Needham hasn't been here since '04, Jann's cited comments are ancient, and the magazine's focus has shifted drastically since Needham left and took the short-form pieces with him.
Score = 0
My problem with Rolling Stone lately isn't just that the music related articles are starting to suck. Rolling Stone needs to decide who they want to be. I think they're going through an identity crisis. They try to retain their indie credibility by doing things like giving shitty reviews to popular bands or overhype certain indie bands after they put Lindsay Lohan on the cover. It's as if they are overcompensating because of the fact that they know what the rest of the music world is saying about them. "Hey, let's hire a guy from the New York Times who's never reviewed anything in our magazine. He doesn't know anything about rock music, and he hates Coldplay. That way we'll give a guaranteed poor review to Coldplay and the indie world will think we're really cool."
And the idea that you can't be successful unless you compromise to be like the other lad mags is a bunch of bs.
Score = 0
that piece on n+1 was some bullllllllshit. homegirl wrote about hating every person who claimed to be inspired by Hunter S. Thompson, but then goes on later to champion Russell, who was the jackass who walked around the office late at night while drinking and procrastinating on a piece and dedicated his actions to -- you guessed it -- Hunter S. Thompson.
I'm sure, as a journalism graduate student and therefore (I'm hoping it's safe to assume) an aspiring journalist, I'm sure she wasn't remotely bitter about picking people who would have an instant chance at what she was hoping for. that piece reeks of someone looking for their 5 minutes of fame just for being associated with the television show by decrying how much they hated it (but obviously not enough to not do it in the first place).
Score = 0